Okay, Now I've Had To Go And Break Out The Soapbox...

I've only been here a few days.

Not long, granted;  but enough time that I've gotten a pretty fair handle on what the the place and the Folks here are about.

It's immediately clear that I am at opposite ends of the political spectrum from the overwhelming majority.

Not altogether unexpected I suppose, but I have to say, I am astonished at the homogeneity of thought that exists among a relatively large group of people who are supposed to be free-thinkers.

I can't help but ask how this is. 

This is not my my first forum.

There have been several other sites that I've spent a fair amount of time on.

Mostly Military, which admittedly have predominantly Religious Conservative memberships.

-- At least, that was the case with Military.com before it was overrun and became Militant.commie --  be that as it may...

I'm pointing this out, because to be absolutely candid, it appears that I was more accepted as a non-religious Conservative (and I made no secret) among religious Conservatives than I seem to be among non-religious, non-Conservatives.

Kind of flies in the face of convention, does it not?

I mean, you have the Military, with its reputation for intolerant lock-step groupthink versus free-thought Atheists who are ostensibly tolerant of practically all dissent.

I've encountered more condescension in a few days here, from just a few people, than I did in a couple of months in other places.

I'd say it takes that convention and stands it on its head.

I'm not being thin-skinned.

It takes a lot to get through the sand-blasted old hide I'm wearin', believe me.

I'm all about objective thought and objective observation.

If I'm wrong, I'm hoping someone will present me with a cogent argument to the contrary.

I'm feeling a bit disillusioned at the moment...

Views: 879

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This is not intended as a blanket indictment.

There's a bunch of real nice people I've met here...

before i joined this site i had no idea what political slant other non-believers had.  but i can't say i was surprised.  Atheists tend to be natural progressives.  at least socially.  we value science - social conservatives don't.  we value secular gov't - social conservatives don't.  i could go on and on but you get the gist.  

the level of homogeneity may be somewhat unexpected, and i suspect many Atheists are Democrats largely b/c of social issues. i had a thread here once on a 3rd party which is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  i think many of us fit into that category, although i'm not so sure i actually agree with current conservative fiscal policies.  however, for many here, the religious/social issues that are rampant in the Republican party are simply too much to go along with.  

Look again.

We're a much more sophisticated bunch than you want to give credit.

And tell you what:

I give you my word that the day the Democrat Party starts to expel the Nuns on Bus along with all the other Catholic/Christian Socialists, and maybe all those hyper-religious Black Folks that are foundational Democrat constituencies, I will do everything I possibly can to see to it that the same is done with those Republican Jesus Freaks.

Fair enough, Tyler? 

What global warming, Tyler?


So are you saying that all those Socialist Christians, along with Socialist grifters in general, aren't pushing their radical Socialist beliefs on everybody else?

I'm gonna' have to call you on at several things here, Matt.

If by Social issues, you refer to abortion, well I'm afraid that I'm with the theists on that, for completely non theistic reasons.

Very simply put, I regard it as nothing more than infanticide, which I regard as nothing more than barbaric.

Seriously, I think it is incumbent upon anyone who would call themselves Human to be protective of the most innocent Humans among us.

If for no other reason, than the survival of the species.

Perhaps the best way illustrate to what I mean, is to use Margaret Sanger (aka, the Mother of Planned Parenthood) as an example.

The Left seems to regard her as some sort icon (Hillary Clinton very certainly worships at her altar).  Have you ever done any research into the woman's philosophy?

The bitch was an unrepentant racist/eugenicist Socialist.

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control."

- Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

- Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 


Those are direct quotes, Matt.  Her own words.  If you'd care to find more information, it's pretty ubiquitous on the internet.

The same sort of "science" found application in the 1930's and 40's in the National Socialist German Reich.

Where do you suppose Adolf Schicklgruber, et al learned their tradecraft?  The woman had a very strong influence there as well.  A real inspiration, in fact.  If you don't want to believe me, you might start by googling up Ernst Rudin.  Better yet, take a few trips to a library.  Fantastic places, those...

Sorry, but I just can't get behind any of that, because behind that lies a realm that contains gas chambers and crematoria.

I've sorta' dedicated my life to opposition of that sort of thing.

The prevention of pregnancy is one thing, the butchering of an innocent Human Being as a matter of nothing more than convenience is another altogether.

As for Conservative fiscal policy, well...

Where do you find flaw in people conducting their own lives and making their own decisions?

It's called Individual Liberty, and on the depressingly few occasions it's actually been put into practice in the history of this Country, it has worked pretty damned well.

Consider the decade of the 1920's and the decade that preceded it.

Woodrow Wilson (a singularly execrable individual) entered in Office in 1913, and immediately went to work on a very "Progressive" agenda.

Right out the gate, the Nation saw the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, which ushered the implementation of a steeply graduated tax on personal incomes (prior to this, known as a capitation tax, forbidden under the Constitution -- even if it had been tried several times before). 

That was a real bad omen for personal liberty.

It paved the way for what was arguably the greatest government power-grab in the Nation's history, prior to 2010.

By the time Wilson (or at least his wife) left office, the top marginal marginal rate had risen from an initial seven percent to seventy-three percent, the private economy had been all but nationalized, and the National Economy was on its knees -- probably in worse condition than 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt entered Office.

Within little more than a year, after the advent of the Harding/Coolidge Administration, the scrapping of the command economy established by Wilson, along with the first of a series of severe tax decreases, the economy had not only recovered, but had begun the greatest economic expansion in the history of the United States (Impressive run-on sentence, is it not?).

Of course, of that all ended a fairly short time later, with the election of Hoover (fine personal friend of Franklin Roosevelt and a Wilson Functionary, who had no business calling himself Republican) and the re-establishment of the "Progressive" agenda, with all its high taxation, onerously meddling government interference, and general misery.

None of this is detailed Matt, I realize.  But do a little digging of your own.  If you're at all objective, you'll see that I'm an obsessive cross-checking, fact-checker who knows what he's talking about.

Don't take my word for it.

Check it for yourself.

And if you can, you'd do well to avoid the "opinion" pieces.

you're welcome to your views on abortion, and feel free to live your life by those principles. obviously, not everyone sees an unborn fetus as equivalent to human life.  since the discrepancy is so vast it, and regulating it such a fucking disaster, it clearly needs to remain safe and legal.  if 90% of people disagreed with this i might reconsider, but considering 60% of the overall population still thinks it should be, i'm inclined to say it's a personal decision.  

regarding fiscal conservatism - well, i used to consider myself one.  but the many of the current policies, particularly about taxes, trouble me greatly.  taxes shouldn't just move in one direction.  it's an adherence to orthodoxy, which offends my progressive sensibilities.  i'm down with decreasing our debt, but rather slowly and pragmatically.  and yes, across the board cuts, including the military.  shouldn't that be a conservative principle?  the republican's belief in supply side economics, or the gold standard, are things i'm not down with.  economists across the board have crushed both arguments.  while not a consensus it's an overwhelming majority. yet republicans just dig in their heels.  it's akin to their belief in faith.  it makes no rational sense, but it's not gonna stop them from believing it.  

Alright, so facts and common sense be damned, you're just gonna' go ahead and believe what you want to.

Where have I seen this before?

Hey, anybody got a facepalm emoticon I could borrow?

are you referring to the 'facts' about abortion?  your rant was rather confusing.  i don't know who those people you were talking about are, and i don't care.  what i do care about is the real world implications to abortion bans.  it's simply unrealistic, and quite often cruel.  it's the reason that the Akins of the world get busy talking about rape, b/c they are trying like crazy to square the circle.  it also takes away real options available to young families.  i have friends, two different couples, whose prenatal testing showed serious medical problems that would lead to serious lifelong healthcare problems, and all the effort and expense that goes along with it.  they both made a decision to terminate the pregnancy.  they both now have healthy young babies.  now some might find that choice repugnant.  that is their right, and if they choose to make a different decision in their own life then that's up to them.  but my friends made a difficult decision, and it was theirs to make.  and their lives are infinitely better for making it.  should they have been forced to bring to term an unhealthy baby b/c of the notion that at 8 weeks it's a full human life?  i say no.  


So now you're accusing me of incoherent raving.


Where do you see a rant, Matt?

I reviewed my post, and I can't even count as much as a single exclamation point.

I think you might be exaggerating, maybe just a little.

At least from my perspective, I made a rational, reasonable argument.

Since you missed the point Matt, I'll try to clarify things a bit.

Margaret Sanger was a woman who helped to found the so-called Progressive Movement at the turn of the Twentieth Century.  She was highly influential in that Movement.

She was a very loud and repulsive racist eugenicist who strongly advocated the complete elimination of all non-Caucasians inside and outside the United States, and that was exactly her purpose when she founded the Planned Parenthood organization. 

Her ideas also became very popular in Europe, where they were adopted by several influential individuals.

Of course, the one I referenced in particular, was Adolf Schicklgruber.

You may not think you know about the vile little corporal, but I am confident that you do.  

That's right Matt, and that is the real World.

That is precisely the place all of the grandiloquent rationalizing you espouse will lead us if it is allowed to go unchecked.

Don't think that I don't understand the individual costs that you referred to, because I very much understand, and I am also very much sympathetic to the plight of individuals who have to deal with those problems.

I have friends also, Matt.

One of those friends gave birth less than a year ago, to a son with profound Down's Syndrome.

She did this in spite of the fact that a lot people - including her own mother - advised her against it.

Ask her now, and she will tell you that she made the right decision, cost of that decision be damned.

He's a really neat little kid.

Now, would you care to define the term;  "fully Human"?

when i referred to your rant, it was regarding the historical figures you mused about.  i could still care less about them, as they have nothing to do with my viewpoint on the issue or current affairs. 

as for your friend with the handicapped son, i think that's a wonderful story, and i'm happy they are happy with their decision.  that doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to make the same one.  

fully human = being born. before that you are something else, hence we don't add 9 months to our birthdays.  and in the earlier stages, there is little to no brain activity. certainly not anything close to consciousness.  and since i don't believe in a soul there is nothing that prevents me from viewing the termination of a pregnancy as perfectly moral.  and again, you don't have to share my views (we're freethinkers, right?) and you can live your life as you see fit, abortions or not.  but just like religion, i see no reason why someone else's views on a subject that doesn't effect their lives should concern them.  why can't the holier than thou crowd on this issue simply mind their own business?

That Mr Greenberg, is some SERIOUSLY impressive rationalizing.

And you lecture me about respect for science.

History is very much a science Mr Greenberg, and the decisions and events of the past bear very heavily on events today.

You want science, Mr Greenberg?

Here ya' go...

Need more?

There's your science, Greenberg.

That first procedure is commonly done at twenty-four and twenty-five weeks -- or even later.

Well after fetal brain function is fully established.

Honestly, I don't want to live in a secular theocracy any more than I'd care to live in a religious theocracy.

If you need a definition of secular theocracy;  well, given that Socialism is a secular religion, any Socialist Autocracy would logically have to be a secular theocracy. 

If you need an example of what a secular theocracy looks like, take a look at The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Better yet, take a gander at Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Reich.

They played a lot of that rationalizing horseshit there, too. 

Seems to me, we'd be almost better off living under a bunch of Mullahs than a slimeball like Stalin or Hitler.

i already asked you to call me Matt, so at this point i can only assume you're being deliberately rude. 

and i have no idea why i'm arguing with an "atheist" who believes in something called a secular theocracy.  




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service